I just looked at the past 10 years and found out that 7 of the 10 winners had HUGE payrolls and that the 3 who didn't were lucky because they had All Star caliber players who were young (drafted or were from the farm system) Obviously those 3 didn't win again because the rookies whos contract were up went to the big boys. ( MONEY ) My point is if we eclipsed the 100 Million mark say to 125 a year.. Could Drayton make money still? Winning the world series and all. There is pitcher say Santana? or how about a guy name Miguel Cabrera? I hate the American League and all their damn money they can throw around.... Yankees and Boston every year can sign big name players while we have to stay under a 100 Million threshold which we didnt' even come close to this past season. My point is it takes Money to win and if you don't spend your just going to be a tier 2 or tier 3 team who is going to wish luck is on there side the whole way.
To have a shot every year in baseball you need to have either a high payroll (of course some teams do and still struggle but most teams that spend get results) or you need to just be smarter ie. Braves/A's/Twins/Marlins Astros have been a team that was pretty smart mid to late 90's but not the best at what they did to one that started spending 2004-2006 and got a little lucky with two hometown discounts in 2004. If you hire good people, draft well and sign those picks and spend in the top 10 every year you should do well. Teams like the Pirates/Royals/D-Rays all have to catch lighting in a bottle to make a run each year
Team payroll rank of World Series champs (in this decade): 2007: Red Sox - #2 (Astros were LOWER) 2006: Cardinals - #11 (Astros were HIGHER) 2005: White Sox - #13 (Astros were HIGHER) 2004: Red Sox - #2 (Astros were LOWER) 2003: Marlins - #25 (Astros were HIGHER) 2002: Angels - #15 (Astros were HIGHER) 2001: Diamondbacks - #8 (Astros were LOWER) 2000: Yankees - #1 (Astros were LOWER) So, of the 8 World Series played since 2000, the Astros have had a HIGHER payroll than the eventual winning team 50% of the time. I'd say that's pretty good. Food for thought: Looking at teams with > $100 million payrolls in the last few years: 2007: 3 of the 8 teams (38%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (13%) - WON! 2006: 2 of the 5 teams (40%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%) 2005: 2 of the 3 teams (66%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%) 2004: 3 of the 3 teams (100%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (33%) - WON! 2003: 2 of the 5 teams (40%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (20%) 2002: 2 of the 4 teams (50%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%) 2001: 1 of the 3 teams (33%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (33%) 2000: no teams above $100 million: Only 2 of the top 5 payroll teams made it; 1 in WS (20%) - WON! There's just no guarantee of making the playoffs with a $100 million payroll, let alone going to the World Series (or heck, even WINNING it). Sorry.
You dont know what this years payroll is, Ed Wade isnt releasing that info. You wont find out till math is done at the end of the year.
You can win without a big payroll in MLB. And having a big payroll doesn't guarantee jack if the people spending it are idiots. However, being able to spend money definitely give you a leg up on the competition. It's an advantage, but not as big as some might think. Having a good farm system, though, is almost always necessary for a championship run. Even the Yankees had mostly home-grown talent during their championship runs in the 90s. The money helped them retain those players. But they developed these players in the first place. I think the Red Sox are the only team in recent memory that actually relied heavily on shrewd trades and signings for their championship. So it's definitely a plausible method for winning. All that said, there's no way Ed Wade can win without money. The guy is too conservative a GM, and he doesn't have a farm to work with.
Not to mention that of the 4 years that the Astros had a LOWER payroll than the WS champ, the champ was either #1 or #2 in 3 of those years
